Yes. When you are coaching players who are being paid, you become more expendable than they do. In college if the star player has an altercation with the coach what happens?
- PLindbergh31

Yup, that's a fair point. But college sports is big business, and I daresay North Dakota doesn't have much going for it other than hockey.

I tried coaching my friends who play in league. They never (frank)ing listened then when they lost in the playoffs, they said they should have listened.

I realized then that I never wanted to coach
- PhillySportsGuy

My children are babies yet, but that's exactly how I imagine the next 18 years of my life.

I can't blame a guy for accepting a job that probably included a sizable raise, and a promotion to the NHL. The Sioux fans were shocked he got an NHL job.

Myself, I think the hire is a reach, like I mentioned yesterday it has a Hextall trying to prove he's the smartest guy in the room vibe to it. That said, outside of Babcock there weren't many coaches I really wanted.
- PLindbergh31

just because it's off the board...a bit, it's not like the guy is a complete unknown...doesn't mean it's hextall trying to be the smartest guy in the room. he got a look at him through watching his son play and obviously liked what he saw.

the more i think about it, the more i like the approach. it's not as if the flyers have piled up the cups since 1975 with all those NHL head coaches. shero and keenan got them a long way. it's been done before. i don't care they didn't win in the ncaa final. one and done. anything can happen. he's had a successful run for his entire tenure as a head coach. he's got to be doing something right.

meh
- -davies-

Absolutely!

I wasn't in the least trying to be a jerk to Ob18 but common, you can't possibly tell us it's wrong to be disappointed or question the hire or have questions period! Don't argue with the rest of us who might have concerns or less information.
- SuperSchennBros

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.. I've been wrong plenty. I enjoy people who can think for themselves, and don't just go along with the crowd.

Make no mistake. There is a huge difference coaching at the collegiate level compared to the professional level. I don't even think I have to bring up all the differences as they are pretty elementary.

There is a reason why NCAA coaches don't make the jump directly to the NHL. I'm not saying it can't work, but the odds probably aren't great.
- PLindbergh31

Going statistically, there have been 3 other NCAA coaches that more or less jumped to the NHL, without other pro experience.

Ned Harkness, Herb Brooks and Bob Johnson. Johnson won a Stanley Cup and was a very good NHL coach. Brooks had a good deal of NHL success, despite not winning a Cup and did a very good job with the Rangers in the early 1980's. Harkness was a disaster.

So 66% have had better than average success, and one crashed and burned.

Yes, there were other candidates I liked. Babcock, McLellan, Dineen, DeBoer, Morris, Blashill were among those. But everything I have read from people who really follow NCAA hockey rave about Hakstol and feel he's got all the attributes to succeed as a NHL head coach.

There's going to be adjustments he has to make, but he seems like he's a smart guy and his record in the ever changing world of collegiate sports show that he can adapt and be successful.

As for why NCAA coaches don't often make the jump? There's very much an old boys network in the NHL. The Flyers aren't the only team that has a slew of former players in the front office and the scouting staff. They're not the only team that has hired ex-players as coaches.

The move is risky, but there's risks with established guys, too. What if Babcock is only worried about a payday? McLellan had a world class roster and couldn't even get to one Cup final. Morris and Blashill have limited NHL experience, and there's plenty of Dallas Eakins out there who were top coaching prospects that fizzled and now get joked about.

There's negatives about every one of those guys. Hakstol has a great track record of developing players and winning while he's doing so. If Hextall's focus is on building a great foundation, a guy like Hakstol who can grow with the team might be the right option.

EDIT: FWIW, Hakstol isn;t the first coach the Flyers hired from college. Mike Keenan was coaching at a Canadian university when he was hired. That worked out ok

Yup, that's a fair point. But college sports is big business, and I daresay North Dakota doesn't have much going for it other than hockey.
- wolfhounds

It is a big business. My point was in college if you are an established coach, you're the boss. In pro sports coaches basically work for the players. A. the players make more money than the coach in most cases. B. When things go wrong as they say you can't fire all the players.

just because it's off the board...a bit, it's not like the guy is a complete unknown...doesn't mean it's hextall trying to be the smartest guy in the room. he got a look at him through watching his son play and obviously liked what he saw.

the more i think about it, the more i like the approach. it's not as if the flyers have piled up the cups since 1975 with all those NHL head coaches. shero and keenan got them a long way. it's been done before. i don't care they didn't win in the ncaa final. one and done. anything can happen. he's had a successful run for his entire tenure as a head coach. he's got to be doing something right.
- hammarby31

It's certainly a new approach.

Going statistically, there have been 3 other NCAA coaches that more or less jumped to the NHL, without other pro experience.

Ned Harkness, Herb Brooks and Bob Johnson. Johnson won a Stanley Cup and was a very good NHL coach. Brooks had a good deal of NHL success, despite not winning a Cup and did a very good job with the Rangers in the early 1980's. Harkness was a disaster.

So 66% have had better than average success, and one crashed and burned.

Yes, there were other candidates I liked. Babcock, McLellan, Dineen, DeBoer, Morris, Blashill were among those. But everything I have read from people who really follow NCAA hockey rave about Hakstol and feel he's got all the attributes to succeed as a NHL head coach.

There's going to be adjustments he has to make, but he seems like he's a smart guy and his record in the ever changing world of collegiate sports show that he can adapt and be successful.

As for why NCAA coaches don't often make the jump? There's very much an old boys network in the NHL. The Flyers aren't the only team that has a slew of former players in the front office and the scouting staff. They're not the only team that has hired ex-players as coaches.

The move is risky, but there's risks with established guys, too. What if Babcock is only worried about a payday? McLellan had a world class roster and couldn't even get to one Cup final. Morris and Blashill have limited NHL experience, and there's plenty of Dallas Eakins out there who were top coaching prospects that fizzled and now get joked about.

There's negatives about every one of those guys. Hakstol has a great track record of developing players and winning while he's doing so. If Hextall's focus is on building a great foundation, a guy like Hakstol who can grow with the team might be the right option.

EDIT: FWIW, Hakstol isn;t the first coach the Flyers hired from college. Mike Keenan was coaching at a Canadian university when he was hired. That worked out ok
- Jsaquella

If you can jump from the NCAA to the NFL or NBA, why not the NHL? Just because there are additional layers between the collegiate and the professional doesn't mean one path is superior to the other in regards to coaching and getting the most from your players. IMO.

Going statistically, there have been 3 other NCAA coaches that more or less jumped to the NHL, without other pro experience.

Ned Harkness, Herb Brooks and Bob Johnson. Johnson won a Stanley Cup and was a very good NHL coach. Brooks had a good deal of NHL success, despite not winning a Cup and did a very good job with the Rangers in the early 1980's. Harkness was a disaster.

So 66% have had better than average success, and one crashed and burned.

Yes, there were other candidates I liked. Babcock, McLellan, Dineen, DeBoer, Morris, Blashill were among those. But everything I have read from people who really follow NCAA hockey rave about Hakstol and feel he's got all the attributes to succeed as a NHL head coach.

There's going to be adjustments he has to make, but he seems like he's a smart guy and his record in the ever changing world of collegiate sports show that he can adapt and be successful.

As for why NCAA coaches don't often make the jump? There's very much an old boys network in the NHL. The Flyers aren't the only team that has a slew of former players in the front office and the scouting staff. They're not the only team that has hired ex-players as coaches.

The move is risky, but there's risks with established guys, too. What if Babcock is only worried about a payday? McLellan had a world class roster and couldn't even get to one Cup final. Morris and Blashill have limited NHL experience, and there's plenty of Dallas Eakins out there who were top coaching prospects that fizzled and now get joked about.

There's negatives about every one of those guys. Hakstol has a great track record of developing players and winning while he's doing so. If Hextall's focus is on building a great foundation, a guy like Hakstol who can grow with the team might be the right option.
- Jsaquella

barry trotz coache for 93 years in nashville and didn't come close to winning Richard. why did he last that long? did he deserve another chance after finally being dumped. would you want him if he were available? over berube, sure. but otherwise? meh.

i'm just using him as an example.

mike haviland (coincidentally the brother of my midget a hockey coach) was a blackhawks assistant when they won the cup in 2010. he was being talked about as a guy with potential for a head coaching gig in the near future. he got dumped. where the (frank) is that guy now? is he suddenly a moron?

nobody has the answers.

It is a big business. My point was in college if you are an established coach, you're the boss. In pro sports coaches basically work for the players. A. the players make more money than the coach in most cases. B. When things go wrong as they say you can't fire all the players.
- PLindbergh31

Yup, I agree completely. That's a problem for all coaches, old men across the board when compared to the players they are coaching, and typically the coach is making a fraction of what the players make, and the players know they are the one the fans come to see, therefore they are the most important ingredient to the money making business. I'd imagine it a lot like teaching in some incredibly posh prep school and getting into an argument with some rich kid and knowing no matter what, you're going to lose.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.. I've been wrong plenty. I enjoy people who can think for themselves, and don't just go along with the crowd.
- PLindbergh31

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning this hire. Question everything!! I'm not one to drink the Kool-aid like most. I like Ron Hextall a lot! I thought he was gonna be our GM right after Bob Clarke decided he didn't want to do it anymore. Now that he's here, I don't think he's anymore a miracle worker as a rookie GM than Babcock is a Hall of Famer Coach. I don't think everything Hextall touches will turn to gold but I do like the direction.

It's certainly a new approach.
- PLindbergh31

and that's my point. i like it because it's new, and i like it because the guy has an excellent track record at a top program. is it a guarantee he'll succeed here? absolutely not. but i like it. as i said, 40 year gap. is it that terrible they're trying something different?

If you can jump from the NCAA to the NFL or NBA, why not the NHL? Just because there are additional layers between the collegiate and the professional doesn't mean one path is superior to the other in regards to coaching and getting the most from your players. IMO.
- wolfhounds

agreed.

If you can jump from the NCAA to the NFL or NBA, why not the NHL? Just because there are additional layers between the collegiate and the professional doesn't mean one path is superior to the other in regards to coaching and getting the most from your players. IMO.
- wolfhounds

A lot of the resistance is because it's really not commonplace. I was surprised when he got hired. I had heard the name, knew that UND had a good program, etc, but didn't know a lot about him.

It really does seem, to me anyhow, that Hextall wanted a guy who had a strong track record of development and who had similar ideas to his own on how a team should be built and how they should play.

There's going to be adjustments. HUGE adjustments. But so many former players rave about Hakstol and a lot of guys who usually have very good insight into college feel he's a good candidate, so it's really apparent the adjustments will mostly be in dealing with different types of players.

Going statistically, there have been 3 other NCAA coaches that more or less jumped to the NHL, without other pro experience.

Ned Harkness, Herb Brooks and Bob Johnson. Johnson won a Stanley Cup and was a very good NHL coach. Brooks had a good deal of NHL success, despite not winning a Cup and did a very good job with the Rangers in the early 1980's. Harkness was a disaster.

So 66% have had better than average success, and one crashed and burned.

Yes, there were other candidates I liked. Babcock, McLellan, Dineen, DeBoer, Morris, Blashill were among those. But everything I have read from people who really follow NCAA hockey rave about Hakstol and feel he's got all the attributes to succeed as a NHL head coach.

There's going to be adjustments he has to make, but he seems like he's a smart guy and his record in the ever changing world of collegiate sports show that he can adapt and be successful.

As for why NCAA coaches don't often make the jump? There's very much an old boys network in the NHL. The Flyers aren't the only team that has a slew of former players in the front office and the scouting staff. They're not the only team that has hired ex-players as coaches.

The move is risky, but there's risks with established guys, too. What if Babcock is only worried about a payday? McLellan had a world class roster and couldn't even get to one Cup final. Morris and Blashill have limited NHL experience, and there's plenty of Dallas Eakins out there who were top coaching prospects that fizzled and now get joked about.

There's negatives about every one of those guys. Hakstol has a great track record of developing players and winning while he's doing so. If Hextall's focus is on building a great foundation, a guy like Hakstol who can grow with the team might be the right option.

EDIT: FWIW, Hakstol isn;t the first coach the Flyers hired from college. Mike Keenan was coaching at a Canadian university when he was hired. That worked out ok
- Jsaquella

All good points Jsaq. As I said, it's not impossible that this works out. I think one reason why it doesn't happen basically ever, is a GM is afraid to make that kind of reach. One thing it says about Hextall is he isn't worried about following a GM for dummies handbook. I've been on board with most of what Hextall has done. I immediately questioned the Hartnell deal, as well as the Rinaldo re-signing (as did a lot of people) those obviously are sunk costs at this point.

I also praised Hextall for adding a useful player in Bellemare, as well as the assets he acquired for Timonen, and Coburn. But most everyone ignores that.

The only way we will know if this was a good hire is to wait and see how things play out on the ice. So the folks in the skeptical camp, and the people in the optimistic camp really have no idea how things will play out and are just speculating.

may 19, 1974. just sayin'.

barry trotz coache for 93 years in nashville and didn't come close to winning Richard. why did he last that long? did he deserve another chance after finally being dumped. would you want him if he were available? over berube, sure. but otherwise? meh.

i'm just using him as an example.

mike haviland (coincidentally the brother of my midget a hockey coach) was a blackhawks assistant when they won the cup in 2010. he was being talked about as a guy with potential for a head coaching gig in the near future. he got dumped. where the (frank) is that guy now? is he suddenly a moron?

nobody has the answers.
- hammarby31

Exactly. You interview guys, look at all the numbers and other factors, and in the end it comes down to who you feel can do the job.

I'm already expecting a mini-rebuild or retool, so I don't think they're an immediate contender. The Flyers hiring Babcock or McLellan says that you are banking on playoffs ASAP.

and that's my point. i like it because it's new, and i like it because the guy has an excellent track record at a top program. is it a guarantee he'll succeed here? absolutely not. but i like it. as i said, 40 year gap. is it that terrible they're trying something different?
- hammarby31

It's not going the safe route that is for sure. Something to be said for having the guts to make this type of move. Other than Babcock, there weren't many other coaches I was enthralled with, so I would say this is at least more exciting then hiring a retread.

All good points Jsaq. As I said, it's not impossible that this works out. I think one reason why it doesn't happen basically ever, is a GM is afraid to make that kind of reach. One thing it says about Hextall is he isn't worried about following a GM for dummies handbook. I've been on board with most of what Hextall has done. I immediately questioned the Hartnell deal, as well as the Rinaldo re-signing (as did a lot of people) those obviously are sunk costs at this point.

I also praised Hextall for adding a useful player in Bellemare, as well as the assets he acquired for Timonen, and Coburn. But most everyone ignores that.

The only way we will know if this was a good hire is to wait and see how things play out on the ice. So the folks in the skeptical camp, and the people in the optimistic camp really have no idea how things will play out and are just speculating.
- PLindbergh31

Gotcha. I get being skeptical. I'm not sure he's going to be a good NHL coach or not.

I'm not picking on you for a negative look at it, or more correctly a skeptical one, because it IS a fairly big risk.

I just know the more I read and hear from this guy, he seems like he's a smart dude. He's confident enough to say "I've had success and accomplished a ton", but at the same time he's smart enough to say, "I can't answer that question because I've never experienced it"

We all hope he turns out to be the Next Shero or Bowman or Babcock. Being skeptical is fine.

Jon Bois @jon_bois · 16 Apr 2014

why watch overtime playoff hockey when you can simply snort cocaine and ride a motorcycle out of a helicopter

Exactly. You interview guys, look at all the numbers and other factors, and in the end it comes down to who you feel can do the job.

I'm already expecting a mini-rebuild or retool, so I don't think they're an immediate contender. The Flyers hiring Babcock or McLellan says that you are banking on playoffs ASAP.
- Jsaquella

it also says business as usual...just find another former coach looking for a new job. i appreciate what hextall's doing here.

Yup, I agree completely. That's a problem for all coaches, old men across the board when compared to the players they are coaching, and typically the coach is making a fraction of what the players make, and the players know they are the one the fans come to see, therefore they are the most important ingredient to the money making business. I'd imagine it a lot like teaching in some incredibly posh prep school and getting into an argument with some rich kid and knowing no matter what, you're going to lose.
- wolfhounds

I only know what I've read regarding Hakstols systems and hockey beliefs. Being he coached at one of the top hockey programs in the country, he could recruit kids that fit his system.
What happens when he's handed a roster where the players skillsets aren't suited for his style of play? What happens? Well we are going to find out pretty quickly. He's not going to ever have an ideal roster, and probably for the first year and maybe more he's going to have a lot of square holes, and round pegs.

Gotcha. I get being skeptical. I'm not sure he's going to be a good NHL coach or not.

I'm not picking on you for a negative look at it, or more correctly a skeptical one, because it IS a fairly big risk.

I just know the more I read and hear from this guy, he seems like he's a smart dude. He's confident enough to say "I've had success and accomplished a ton", but at the same time he's smart enough to say, "I can't answer that question because I've never experienced it"

We all hope he turns out to be the Next Shero or Bowman or Babcock. Being skeptical is fine.
- Jsaquella

it also says business as usual...just find another former coach looking for a new job. i appreciate what hextall's doing here.
- hammarby31

Outside of Babcock, most of the guys out there have a big flaw or two.

I think Babcock is expecting Pegula to do what Snider and Homer did after 2006-07: Get a high pick, toss a poopload of cash and other assets into immediate improvement and make a run for the PO's